CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 22 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28539/16 Ivanka CVETKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 18 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings between private parties regarding payment of a sum of money. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the second-instance court’s judgment, reversing the first-instance court’s judgment rendered in her favour, lacked adequate reasoning and was contrary to the Supreme Court’s case-law on the matter. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the second-instance court give adequate reasons for reversing the first-instance court’s judgment, having regard to the Supreme Court’s case-law on the matter (see, for example, judgments of the Supreme Court nos. Rev-x 234/10-2 of 23 February 2011; Rev-1132/1999-2 of 1   April 2003; and Rev 1737/11-2 of 26 February 2013)?